ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Michael D. Chaffee, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security administration (Commissioner) denying his claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial review, the Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff filed his applications for DIB and SSI on November 8, 2008, alleging disability since January 1, 2007, due to ""Copd, bursitis, osgood slaughter disease, asthma." (Tr. 155-165, 190, 195). An administrative hearing was held on May 26, 2010, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 33-96).
By written decision dated September 13, 2010, the ALJ found that since the onset date of disability, January 1, 2007, to April 7, 2010, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe — chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, hypertension, and a history of bilateral inguinal hernia repair. (Tr. 13-14). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 15). The ALJ found that between January 1, 2007 and April 7, 2010, Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
(Tr. 16). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that since January 1, 2007, until April 7, 2010, Plaintiff was not capable of performing his past relevant work, but that there were other jobs Plaintiff would be able to perform, such as assembly work, machine tender, and cashier. (Tr. 19). The ALJ also determined that beginning on April 7, 2010, the date the claimant's age category changed, considering his age, education, work experience, and RFC, there were no jobs that existed that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 19). Therefore, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled prior to April 7, 2010, but became disabled on that date and has continued to be disabled through the date of this decision. (Tr. 19-20). Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which denied the request on February 3, 2012. (Tr. 1-4). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 5). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 8, 9).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript. The complete set of facts and arguments are presented in the parties' briefs, and are repeated here only to the extent necessary.
This Court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
It is well established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that has lasted at least one year and that prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity.
The Commissioner's regulations require him to apply a five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant had engaged in substantial gainful activity since filing his claim; (2) whether the claimant had a severe physical and/or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment(s) met or equaled an impairment in the listings; (4) whether the impairment(s) prevented the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant was able to perform other work in the national economy given his age, education, and experience.
Plaintiff raises the following issues on appeal: 1 & 2) The ALJ erred in making his RFC determination and failed to give proper weight to Dr. Burnett's opinion; 3) The ALJ erred in applying the grids; 4) The ALJ erred in dismissing Dr. Vann Smith's report; and 5) There is not substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision.
RFC is the most a person can do despite that person's limitations. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a)(1). It is assessed using all relevant evidence in the record.
In the present case, Plaintiff was diagnosed with COPD three times in 2007 by Dr. Richard L. Burnett at the Burnette, Croon, Lincoln, and Paden Clinic. (Tr. 315, 317, 319). On September 5, 2007, a chest x-ray revealed no acute process in the chest. (Tr. 324).
On February 26, 2008, a handwritten note on a Spirometry Report indicated "Mild COPD." (Tr. 321). On April 18, 2008, Dr. Burnette assessed Plaintiff with COPD and asthma. (Tr. 313). On April 18, 2008, another chest x-ray was taken, and the findings were as follows:
(Tr. 323).
On June 15, 2008, Plaintiff presented himself to the Baxter Regional Medical Center complaining of difficulty breathing. (Tr. 308). He indicated that he "took big swig" of "snapps" and could not catch his breath for a while. (Tr. 308). He also was reported to have quit smoking six months prior. (Tr. 308). He was diagnosed with dyspnea-resolved. (Tr. 308). A chest x-ray revealed "Mild interstitial disease and granulomatous changes, but no focal infiltrates or effusions appreciated." (Tr. 310).
Plaintiff again presented himself to Baxter Regional Medical Center on October 26, 2008, and was diagnosed with asthma and COPD. (Tr. 306).
On December 3, 2008, Dr. Ronald Crow completed a Physical RFC Assessment, and found that Plaintiff was capable of performing medium work with certain limitations. (Tr. 328-335).
On May 18, 2010, Dr. Burnette assessed Plaintiff with severe COPD and an abnormal EKG. (Tr. 371).
On July 5, 2010, Dr. Erick R. Araneda, a cardiologist, gave the following impression:
(Tr. 375).
On July 27, 2010, Dr. Burnett wrote a letter "To Whom it May Concern," stating that Plaintiff had a diagnosis of severe exertional asthma and non cardiac chest pain, and that he "is unable to work and it would be advisable for him to apply for disability." (Tr. 377).
The ALJ addressed all of the above medical records in his decision, and noted that none of the medical records demonstrated that Plaintiff was limited in any particular fashion as of January 1, 2007, his alleged onset date. (Tr. 18). The ALJ continued:
(Tr. 18). The ALJ also addressed Dr. Burnett's letter dated July 27, 2010, and noted that whether someone is "disabled" is a determination reserved solely to the Commissioner. (Tr. 17). He also said that Dr. Burnett's letter was discounted because it did not address when Plaintiff's disability began. "Even if the undersigned accepted Dr. Burnett's letter, it would only establish disability as of July 27, 2010, because the letter does not state that the claimant was disabled at any earlier time." (Tr. 18). "A treating source's opinion is to be given controlling weight where it `is supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and where it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [a claimant's] case record.'"
It is noteworthy that on April 18, 2008, when Dr. Burnett assessed Plaintiff with COPD and asthma, x-rays of Plaintiff's chest revealed that his COPD was unchanged from previous studies, which indicated Plaintiff had "mild COPD." (Tr. 321, 323). The next time Plaintiff saw his treating physician was on May 18, 2010, when Dr. Burnett diagnosed Plaintiff with "severe COPD." (Tr. 371). Plaintiff appears to argue that Plaintiff was disabled from the onset date of January 1, 2007, rather than when he turned 50 years of age on April 7, 2010.
It is true that under the regulations, the age categories are not applied mechanically in a borderline situation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(b);
The ALJ addressed Plaintiff's daily activities, considered the medical records as well as Plaintiff's expression of his own limitations, and the Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's RFC, and that the ALJ considered Dr. Burnett's opinion and gave sufficient reason for discounting it.
Although the non-examining consultant opined that Plaintiff would be able to perform medium work, the ALJ found Plaintiff to be more limited prior to April 7, 2010, and found him to be capable of sedentary work.
The Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's RFC assessment and conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled prior to April 7, 2010.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ wrongly discounted Dr. Smith's report. The ALJ discussed Dr. Smith's report as follows:
(Tr. 14).
Courts have affirmed decisions in which one-time examination reports from Dr. Vann Smith were accorded little weight.
The undersigned is of the opinion that the ALJ merely pointed out the "inconsistencies within Dr. Smith's assessment and the inconsistencies between Dr. Smith's assessment and the other medical evidence of record."
Plaintiff asserts that his previous arguments support the fact that there was not substantial evidence to support the ALJ's findings. However, based upon the Court's foregoing analysis, as well as the reasons given in Defendant's well-stated brief, the Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's findings.
Accordingly, having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision denying the Plaintiff benefits, and thus the decision is hereby affirmed. The undersigned further finds that Plaintiff's Complaint should be, and is hereby, dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
